from A. Clifford, widow of J. Clifford, Table Bay Harbour Board.

for a bridge over the Orange River in place of the ferry on the main road to Griqualand West (three petitions).

from inhabitants of Kenhardt, praying the House not to grant the farm Leeuwkop as a Mission Station.

from the Municipal Council of Woodstock, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

a similar petition from Pietpotgietersrust.

a similar petition from Griqualand West.

a similar petition from the Town Council of Lindley.

a similar petition from the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce.

a similar petition from the Mayor and Councillors of the Municipality of Victoria West.

for railway communication between Prieska and Gordonia (two petitions).

from inhabitants of Boshof, praying for railway communication (seven petitions).

from Margaret Evelyn, widow of T. Evelyn, Railway Department.

from James Lawrence, Accounting Branch, Cape Government Railways.

from Jansenville, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

similar petition from inhabitants of Heidelberg.

from E. M. Bell, widow of Charles George Harland Bell.

from W. H. Harrison, for increased pension.

from the congregations of the mosques at Port Elizabeth, praying that the proposed amendment in the Solemnisation of Marriages Bill, prohibiting the marriage between coloured and European persons, be not accepted.

from P. B. Borcherds, postmaster at Laingsburg.

from Dr. A. Edington, bacteriologist.

from the Mayor and Councillors of Mowbray, praying that further Asiatic immigration foe stopped.

brought up the report of the Committee of the Whole House on the Bill.

Resolved,—That the amendments be considered on Monday.

Railway Department, showing changes of title of officers (in receipt of substantive pay of £180 per annum and upwards) and increments in salaries.

Controller and Auditor-General upon the Finance Accounts, Appropriation Accounts, etc., of the Orange River Colony, 1st July, 1909, to 30th May, 1910.

For each University College: The total grant on the Estimates; amounts assigned for salaries, interest on buildings, payment of sums due by the State Government before Union, and general maintenance; total sum paid or payable to the Government for interest and redemption during the current year; number of professors, lecturers, students, etc.

in moving the second reading of the Prisons and Reformatories Bill, thought that that piece of legislation was one of the most important which would be introduced that session—with the exception of financial measures. (Laughter.) He might say, by way of preface, that the present Bill was really a result of the conference which had taken place. A committee had been called together last August, which consisted of the heads of the principal prisons of the different Provinces. The matter of prison legislation was an extremely important one, and was one which was receiving attention in various parts of the world. As a basis for the Bill had been taken the existing Act of the Transvaal and the Act of the Free State, while additions had been made to it on the lines of existing legislation in the Cape and Natal. Why the Transvaal Act had been taken as the basis was because it was in the Transvaal that the most successful effort had been made in South Africa to deal with that problem, and because of the great interest which had been taken in that matter by his predecessor in the Transvaal—the former Attorney-General there. The prisons there had been placed under the supervision of a most capable man, who took a great interest in the question of prison reform, and was an enthusiast on the matter. Their system in the Transvaal could compare favourably with any in the world, and it had been taken by the delegates at that conference as a basis on which to place the new system which it was proposed to introduce under the present Bill. There were 667 institutions in the Union at the present time where prisoners were confined, although they could not all, of course, be classed as gaols; and there were 2,849 officials of different grades, while the number of prisoners came to about 15,000, or five or six to every official. If one went into the question, it would be seen that by means of greater centralisation they could reduce the number of officials, and economise in that respect. In the Transvaal they had what they had nowhere else—what they called industrial schools. There was one at Standerton which he would like to touch upon, although they had others, but they were not like the one at Standerton, where young people who were neglected by their parents or guardians, or were in danger of going to the bad and drifting into crime, were taken up, and received proper education, which converted them into useful members of society. They received a useful, industrial education. That institution undoubtedly filled a want which had been felt in South Africa. He thought it was one of the best institutions they could have in connection with poor, neglected children in the country. Provision was made in the Bill for the establishment of further institutions of that nature. Dealing with reformatories, General Hertzog said that provision was made for two classes of persons. One class was the youthful offender, and the other was the adult offender. In the Cape and the Transvaal a sharp line was drawn between the young offender and the adult offender, but not over the whole of South Africa—and the young people were kept under the supervision of the superintendent, who took the place of a guardian, so that the young offenders would receive a good training, and more on home lines than anything else, in order that they could become useful members of the community. There was another class they had to do with: the young adult offenders; and in this case, too, they wanted a system which would reform them, though this was a more hardened class, and therefore one not so easily dealt with. In the Transvaal there was, he continued, a system of what were called “road camps,” where those—especially coloured persons—who had been convicted of contraventions of the Pass Law, and who could not really be classed as criminals, were confined without having the mark of criminals upon them, and who were employed at such work as road mending. These people did not go to gaol, and were not prisoners in the ordinary sense of the word. That system had worked well in the Transvaal, and if the Bill became law it would be extended over the whole of South Africa. Next, there was the question of dealing with those convicted of drunkenness. In the Cape Province some provision had already been made; and partially for what was now included in the Bill—that institutions could be erected where confirmed drunkards could be sent for a number of years. Provision was made that, where a man had been convicted three times of the offence, the Magistrate could send him to one of these institutions for treatment. When a person became a habitual drunkard to such an extent that he became a nuisance to the community he could, if his family made a request to that effect, be sent, after due investigation, to one of these places, where he could get the treatment which was required. He (General Hertzog) admitted that that was another innovation, and that there were not many countries where that was done. He hoped that hon. members followed what had been done in the British Parliament from time to time in regard to that question, and would recognise that it was highly necessary that there should be such an institution in South Africa for the treatment of Chronic drunkards. Provision was also made for labour colonies, to which a prisoner could be sent before being set free. They found that when a man was discharged by the gaol authorities, the difference between the prison life to which he had become accustomed and the life outside was such that the change was too sudden; and the man did not know what to do, the consequence being that very often he drifted back into crime and into gaol once more. The Bill authorised the Governor-General to establish labour colonies, if necessary, where, if it were thought desirable, a man could be sent, and learn to labour before being released altogether. His liberty in such a colony would not be so much curtailed as in gaol, but he would not be a free man. When he became a free man once more he would have a trade, and having been for some time in one of these colonies he would not feel lost as soon as he got into the world once more. There would be a Director of Prisons, who at present was the Secretary of the Law Department of the Union. It was intended that he should remain in that position; and he hoped that the present person who occupied the post would remain Director of Prisons as long as he was in his present position, for they could not have a better man. But there was very much work to do, and it might be necessary for him to have assistance, so provision was made for an assistant director; and the Government would be given the power to appoint such an assistant. He had decided that the title of “governor” of prisons should go. As to civil imprisonment, it was felt, even by the civil prisoners themselves, that they should do some work, and provision would be made for that; while the money paid on their behalf would go to the State, which would provide their food. Provision was also made that during the hours in which no work was done in the gaols, such as at night time, the prisoners should be kept separated in cells, because now, where they were placed together, the one corrupted the other, and the best of them became as bad as the worst. In most places solitary confinement was impossible at present owing to lack of accommodation. As to the use of firearms by warders, it would only be allowed: first, in the case of a prisoner escaping; secondly, when an attack was made by a prisoner on a warder, and, thirdly, when it was necessary to fire because a prisoner was attacking another person. Them provision was made for a “Visitors’ Board.” In Pretoria there was such a Board, consisting of five persons, two of whom were prison officials, and three being outside persons. They met a couple of times every week, and made an investigation into the conduct of the prisoners whose sentences exceeded two years. It was proposed that where it was found that a convict was of good conduct, and had decided to turn over a new leaf, he might be permitted to go “on approbation”—i.e., he would be released, and, if he kept straight, would be sure of his liberty; whereas, if he committed another crime, he would, in addition to the fresh term of imprisonment, have to serve the balance of the original term. They did not want the ticket-of-leave system of England, because under it a man who was liberated felt so restricted as a result of the continual police supervision that he would almost rather remain in prison. There was a society for the aid of discharged prisoners, which drew an annual subsidy of £500, divided over the principal centres of population. It had done excellent work. There were several other matters in the Bill which he would not touch upon. There was no doubt that there must be uniformity in the whole country, and other reforms were needed, which the sooner they were introduced the better.

said he thought it was very much to be regretted that the Minister for Justice had not made his speech in English.

Why? (Cheers.)

Because I think a greater number of members of the House would have understood it, and it would have saved the good-natured concession of offering to repeat it in English. I am sorry to hear that “Why?” from the other side of the House. I take it that the bulk of the members of this House understand English, but in any case, even if they don’t, they are anxious without regard to nationality that the business of the House should be got through as expeditiously as possible. I am sorry I made the protest, because I thought it would have been received in a different spirit. We are accustomed to having these requests courteously listened to in the Parliament from which we come. (“Oh.”)

The hon. member must confine himself to the subject, and not make any reference to any question outside the scope of the Bill. Every hon. member is at full liberty to use either language.

said that he did not intend to pursue the matter. He hoped that the introduction of this Bill would arouse a great deal of interest in this very important subject. The Bill was a well-meant Bill; there were many excellent points in it, and he thought, with a little bit of good common-sense and careful handling in committee, they would be able to make a real good Bill of it. He understood that the Minister said that the Bill now before the House was based in its main points upon Transvaal legislation. He was sorry that the Minister did not go the whole length of the Transvaal on these points. In discussing this matter, they should free their minds of all sentimentality or namby-pambyism, but at the same time they should try and keep a sort of sound sympathy with the subjects of this legislation. They had been informed that there were something like 17,000 people in this country living in gaols—15,000 prisoners and 2,000 assistants. In the first part of the Bill there were a few defects in the proposed way in which prisoners were to be dealt with. Provision was made in two or three chapters in one form or another for the punishment of prisoners. He thought they ought to lay it down when they came to deal with that part of the Bill concerning prisoners who were vicious, or had broken the laws or regulations of the gaol, and the punishment to be meted out to them, that their cases should be tried and gone into in as public a manner as possible. In the Bill power was given to certain prison authorities to try prisoners and impose upon them penalties up to two years and 24 strokes. That was in addition to the original sentence. It was quite true that provision was made for a Judge to look into such a sentence, but his point was that it was not fair to try any prisoner in connection with a serious offence, under any circumstances whatever, in prison. A prisoner should have the benefit of publicity. He did not wish to cast any reflection upon the prison authorities, but he would say that he did not get a fair chance and free treatment in prison, where the witnesses were possibly warders or other prisoners. As regarded minor offences, one would have no hesitation in leaving such matters in the hands of the gaolers. Where it was possible, however, to increase a prisoner’s sentence by two years and 24 strokes, surely the least they could give him would be the best possible trial. There was another clause in the Bill which provided that, in the event of a prisoner becoming insane, he should be sent to an asylum, and, when he came back he should be sent back to gaol to complete his sentence. There might be cases where that would be perfectly proper, but there might also he cases where such procedure would amount to a gross injustice—in fact, almost a tragedy. He contended that it was not punishment to send a prisoner, after returning from an asylum, to complete his sentence in gaol. It was infinitely worse than punishment, and he thought the Minister should have power in certain cases, where he saw the necessity, to allow the prisoners to go free. As regarded chapters 7, 8, and 9, which dealt with industrial schools, juvenile crime, and drunkards, he thought the House ought to be extremely careful of what it did. A mass of experience gained in other countries was available, and he thought the Minister had availed himself of a good deal of that experience. Under the Transvaal Acts of 1908 and 1909, in dealing with children who were charged with crime, power was given to the authorities to send them out to people who cared for them—relatives, friends, or societies whose business it was to reclaim children. In the present Bill, however, that provision did not appear. There was nothing of the kind in the Bill, but he hoped it would be inserted. It was not necessary to argue in favour of that policy, which had been found a good one everywhere eke. The experience in England was that 60 per cent. of habitual criminals commenced their criminal careers between the ages of 16 and 21, and it was of first importance that they should look after boys and girls between those ages. Looked at from any point of view, it was wise to see to it that these children had a chance of being reclaimed and turned into good citizens. Johannesburg had several societies which made it their business to deal with matters of that kind, and it would be a thousand pities if the good work they were doing for the State and the children was lost. He hoped the Minister would look into the matter again, and see to it that the same privileges or the same powers were given to the authorities as were given elsewhere to deal with young children. What about, the gaols of the country? He wondered how many members knew the condition of these institutions. (Laughter.) In the gaols of the Transvaal prisoners were herded in cells as sheep were herded in pens. The experience gained in other parts of the world however, proved that that was a fatal policy. He understood—but he hoped he had been misinformed—that the conditions down here were no better. It was no use asking the Minister to bring in a Bill such as the present one, if they had not proper gaols and proper reformatories. He should be glad if a Commission could be appointed and sent round the country to examine the gaols, and come back and present its report to the House. He thought the report would stagger the House. The conditions in gaols at present were unfair to the prisoners, unfair to the State, and wrong from every point of view.

moved the adjournment of the debate. He stated that a number of members had been unable to follow the speech of the Minister, who spoke in Dutch. Many of the members were in sympathy with the Bill, but they would like to have an opportunity of reading the Minister’s speech.

seconded the motion for the adjournment.

said that the debate should be allowed to go on, and if at a later stage it was necessary to adjourn it, then the House could agree to do so.

said he thought the objection was reasonable, for there were many hon. members on his side of the House who would like to read these speeches.

said that 87 per cent. of Ministers’ speeches were made in English, and as many hon. members on his side of the House could not understand this language, if debates were to be adjourned to allow of their reading these speeches, they would never be able to make any progress with the business of the House.

put the motion that the debate be adjourned, and this was negatived.

said he was opposed to the scheme whereby the offices of Director of Prisons and Secretary to the Minister of Justice were made one office. This should not be, because the office of Director was one that should be filled by one of the best officials they had. They had been told that this arrangement would hold while the present Secretary to the Department of Justice held office. There might be personal reasons for that, but he thought that this sort of thing tended to make bad administration. Continuing, he said that the Bill before the House embodied some very advanced principles, but the question was whether they had the officials who could carry out these principles. From what information—official and unofficial—he had been able to gain, he had come to the conclusion that the efficiency of the prison staffs had not improved. In the case of the Transvaal, he thought that this had been due to the policy of the late Government of finding employment for men who were quite unfit for this sort of business. They lacked discipline, character, and experience. They were put there on the principle that any son of the soil, as long as he was out of work, was good enough for the job. He contended that warders should be men able to control their tempers, men of good character and good education. Proceeding, he referred to the distinction between juveniles and juvenile adults. It was a very sound principle, and, he added, it was an improvement on the old Transvaal law, whereby children up to the age of 18 years could be sent to a reformatory, but could not be detained after they had reached the age of 20 years. Under this measure they could not be sent after they had reached 16 years, and could not be detained after the age of 18. That was perfectly sound, provided there was an efficient method of dealing with juvenile adults. He pointed out that little could be done during a sentence of three, four, or six months, and he submitted that the Courts should have the power to sentence to longer periods if it was thought that the treatment would be effective. Dealing with reformatories, He thought there should be a provision whereby offenders could be allowed out on licence or probation, as was the case in England. Referring to industrial schools, he regretted very much that under the Bill girls who had been convicted could be sent to mix with the inmates of these schools. He did not think this a good scheme, and said it would be better to found suitable institutions for these children without delay. He also thought that power should be given to commit juveniles to stated schools instead of reformatories, a system which he considered would be productive of more good, and at the same time save a great deal of expense. It was very questionable whether large institutions really were the best means of raising children who had been taken away from their parents. The experience in England was that these large institutions frequently produced very good results with boys, but where girls were concerned, the results were not so beneficial. Consequently, it had been suggested that these cases should be dealt with, not in large institutions, but in cottage homes, where the children would! live as nearly as possible under home conditions. He did not say that we ought to plunge into a scheme of this kind until we knew that it was fitted to the circumstances of the country, but the Bill ought to be elastic enough to enable Government to adopt that system if it should be found necessary to do so in the future. We should try to make an industrial home as much like a school and as little like a prison as possible. (Cheers.) It would be a great advantage, too, if the inmates of these institutions were examined by the school inspectors. Having remarked that it was very important that the definition of the word “guardian” should be as wide as possible, the hon. member expressed the opinion that the Bill was a very great advance. He hoped its administration would be as enlightened as the principle on which the measure was based. He trusted that the responsible Minister would allow sufficient time for the attention of the people to be directed to the measure, so that the public could make suggestions. (Cheers.) The Bill could be amended with advantage, and if it was, it would form the basis on which a very enlightened system of reformatories could be established in South Africa. (Cheers.)

said there had been a good many grievances in the hiring-out of convicts, while many free men were out of employment. There was no need to lease convicts to outside people, for there were many public works, such as road-making, on which they could be engaged. A premium was put upon crime by the hiring-out of prisoners, they practically being guaranteed work and rations, which free men were not guaranteed.

complained that although children were being educated, no employment was being found for them. Government should direct its attention to the finding of work, and then the number of people in gaol would very considerably be reduced. It appeared to him (continued Mr. Nathan) to be a new thing to allow people undergoing civil imprisonment to work for their own benefit. Creditors did not send debtors to prison so that they might carry on their work there. He hoped this clause—which was vague, was liable to abuse, and was wrong in principle—would be explained. Then the powers of prison superintendents with regard to the infliction of severe punishment were very wide. They could sentence prisoners to solitary confinement and to corporal punishment, and these sentences were not subject to appeal to any court. A sentence of three years’ imprisonment for drunkenness was very severe, and he hoped it would never be imposed. No such discretion as that should be given to a Magistrate. Section 86 would be welcomed by everybody; it empowered Government to make financial grants to associations for the reclamation of persons just discharged from prison. With regard to clause 96, providing that an officer who was injured or suffered any loss during his employment, would have no right of action against the Government, he thought that this should be amended, and that officers should at least be placed on the same basis as that provided for under the Workman’s Compensation Act.

said he was heartily in accord with the main principles of the Bill, but there were one or two points which he thought required amendment. One of these was as to the powers given to superintendents and assistant-superintendents to impose punishments. It seemed to him that under this Bill they proposed to give far too large powers to the officials in this respect. He thought also that provision should be made to allow appeal from such sentences. With regard to industrial schools, the Bill provided for the child of a parent who was charged with a crime to be sent to an industrial school. Surely they ought to wait until the parent had been convicted. Moreover, the remaining parent might be able to take good care of the child.

said it was provided in clause 82 that habitual drunkards might be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years. If hon. members took the trouble to read the evidence given before the Royal Commission in England they would come to the conclusion that the habitual drunkard should be segregated not for three years only, but for life. That was the conclusion at which the most eminent medical authorities of Great Britain and the Continent had arrived. If such a course were necessary there, it was necessary here.

welcomed much that the Bill contained; such legislation had long been required in this country. One thing that struck him in connection with the Bill was that, whereas it was arranged that an officer should be appointed, who should be styled the Director of Prisons, there was no qualifying adjective with reference to that officer. He (Sir D. Hunter) thought they should be careful to ensure that a man was appointed to that position who would be thoroughly qualified to carry out the duties which the administration of the Bill involved. The matter of prison administration had reached the height of a science, and it was of the highest importance in making a new beginning that they should appoint a man of adequate qualifications in regard to the study of criminology and prison administration. He hoped that in the future administration of prison laws they would abolish such barbarous methods as condemning a man to confinement in dark cells.

emphasised the point that nowadays every effort was being made to prevent the manufacture of criminals. He thought that the Bill was one that deserved cordial commendation, but at the same time he considered that they might do more even than was proposed within the four comers of the Bill. Mr. Clayton pointed to cases of a minor character where persons who had been convicted and were unable to pay the fine imposed should be sent, not to gaols or industrial homes, but to their own districts, and apprenticed by the Magistrates.

replying on the debate, explained the objects and purposes of the road camps in operation in the Transvaal, to which, he explained, men were sent for minor offences, instead of being placed in gaol to herd with criminals. He thought those road camps had served an excellent purpose. (Hear, hear.) He welcomed the speech given by the hon. member for Fordsburg, but he regretted that the hon. member had rather hastily and unjustly criticised the staff of the Prison Department in the Transvaal. His own opinion was that the prison staff in the Transvaal was a very competent staff. What they wanted in connection with prison administration was a sympathetic attitude. All of them, perhaps, at some time of their lives had committed some little contravention of the law. They had to deal in prison with a class of humanity differing in degree of goodness or badness from the rest of humanity, with the result that they were there for the purpose of being improved for the benefit of society. In conclusion, General Hertzog intimated that he would cordially welcome, when they went into committee, any suggestions whereby the Bill might be rendered more effective.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and set down for committee stage on Monday, 13th inst.

in moving the second reading, said that it was really part of the Prisons and Reformatories Bill, but it had been found necessary to keep it quite separate. It was proposed by this Bill that when a man had committed one of the series of offences mentioned in the schedule—they were not many, about 12—and he was afterwards brought before a Court for having committed one of these offences, the Court might then find him to be a habitual criminal, and sentence him to imprisonment for an indeterminate period. He might say that with regard to this Bill there were two or three countries where it was in operation. In England it was in operation, but in the matter of imprisonment a maximum period was fixed. This Act obtained in the Transvaal, and he had tried to find out what the result of it had been there. From all sides he had been assured that it worked excellently. It had cleared the country of a very large number of the worst criminals in the world, who had flocked to Johannesburg and other places in the Transvaal. Provision was made whereby a number of persons would have the right from time to time to inquire into the conduct of habitual criminals, and bring out a report, and if at any time later on a prisoner’s conduct was satisfactory, and he showed signs of improvement, his sentence would be mitigated.

asked the Minister whether he would not include dipsomaniacs in the list?

said that a dipsomaniac was not absolutely a criminal, and the distinction was brought out in Chapter IX. of the Prisons and Reformatories Bill, and the suggestion of the hon. member for Roodepoort was quite unnecessary.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and the committee stage set down for Monday week.

in moving the second, reading of the Bill, said that it consisted of three parts. Chapter I. dealt exclusively with the importation of cattle into the Union, both from oversea and from other countries in South Africa. It was provided that cattle should be imported only through ports of entry, to be specially proclaimed as such. The Principal Veterinary Officer would supervise the importation, and would not allow any sick or infected cattle to enter the Union. Whenever any suspected cattle arrived, the Principal Veterinary Officer could cause it to be isolated, and on any disease showing itself, the cattle would be destroyed without the owner being paid any compensation. In order to ascertain that cattle so imported were quite healthy, tests would be imposed for thirty days at least, which was a period sufficient to determine whether there was any reaction. Chapter II. regulated the movements of stock within the Union, and provided that, whenever any stock had become infected with disease, or was suspected of having become affected, the owner should report the infection, or the suspicion —as the case might be—immediately. When the disease was scab in sheep or goats, the area in which they were situated could be proclaimed! infected forthwith. In the case of any other disease, however, an inquiry would be held, and if the existence of such other disease were proved, the area would likewise be declared infected. In cases of tuberculosis, glanders, or lung-sickness, all cattle found on the farm would be destroyed, compensation being paid under the Schedule to the Bill. The object of this provision was to encourage owners to report any suspicious symptoms as soon as possible, because they would not suffer any damage as a result of their action in safeguarding others from infection. The Government were at I resent destroying all animals suffering from glanders, except in the Free State, but they intended to extend the system to the Free State as well. Once a farm had been declared infected no movement of stock could take place there except under a permit from the Principal Veterinary Officer. Experience had shown that stray cattle often did a lot of harm in spreading disease, and the Bill provided that anyone finding stray cattle on his farm would be entitled to isolate them. If they were sheep, he might dip them as a preliminary to their being impounded. On their being sold by the poundmaster the finder would be paid his out-of-pocket expenses. Chapter III. was the most important one because it dealt with the Minister’s powers, including that of issuing regulations. Those powers were of a drastic nature, but in view of the condition of the country that was unavoidable. A good deal had to be left to the Minister’s discretion if they were in earnest about fighting the terrible diseases that were ravaging the country. It had been said that a Bill such as the one they were considering should provide for all contingencies, and describe all measures contemplated. In South Africa that was impossible, however. The nature of the diseases was apt to change; fresh diseases were added to the list, and it would be found necessary to introduce amending legislation year after year if anything of the kind were attempted. Hon. members would see that that was an impossible proposition. It was easy enough to frame a Bill in order to meet present-day conditions, but if they did they would very soon have to undo their work. Regulations, therefore, were essential. These would be laid on the table in due course, and the powers sought for in the Bill were solely in the interests of stockbreeders themselves. Unless a decided stand were made now, the day would come when it would be impossible to fight cattle disease successfully, i.e., stock-farming would be a thing of the past. (Hear, hear.) Hon. members should not lose sight of the fact that, with closer settlement, the danger of infection increased. The causes of most of the diseases in question were now known, and the country possessed institutions of research into the causes that had remained hidden so far. He trusted, therefore, that his Department would have the support of all who meant well by the country. In committee he would move certain amendments, i.e., about the time allowed for the tabling of the regulations so as to enable hon. members to have a full and free discussion on all matters of administrative detail. The Government were determined to enlist public sympathy in their war on cattle disease, and any Minister attempting to carry out regulations in an autocratic manner would soon find a hornet’s nest about his ears. If at any time regulations were made during a session of Parliament they would be laid on the table immediately. One of the worst forms of cattle disease in South Africa was scab. The fact of scab having been included among the diseases dealt with in the present Bill had caused quite a commotion. Now was the time, however, for the Government to tackle the question once and for all. The prospects of cattle-farming were excellent, but unless Parliament supported the Government in carrying out stringent measures they would never succeed in eradicating diseases. Now, it happened in all countries under the sun that Jack was rather more negligent than (his neighbour. Some people thought it was never top late to bestir themselves; others thought it was never early enough. Government would have to act neither with undue haste, not again in a dilatory fashion. In the past many schemes had miscarried because of injudicious action. One of the primary duties of Parliament was to take care that no one suffered owing to his neighbour’s conservative tendencies. He was determined to advance the interests of agriculture, but no amount of scientific work would avail unless he had the cooperation of the people. The other day someone called on film to tell film that, instead of destroying cattle, he had better destroy ticks. Advice of that description was all very well, but it was not always easy to carry it into execution. Scab was caused by a kind of tick. Once this insect was killed, the disease had gone too. Some people doubted this diagnosis, but he had no doubt that the disease was due to the existence of a member of the animal kingdom, with a father and a mother of its own. (Laughter.) Unless scab were done away with, the price of South African wool, which was low enough as it was, would go down still further, and it would never reach the figure realised for Australian wool. In order to illustrate the evil reputation of South African wool in the European markets, he mentioned that, if Australian sheep were imported into South Africa, isolated and shorn, the wool—good though it might be—would never fetch more than the average price of Cape wool in London, simply because it was exported from South Africa. Buyers no sooner became aware of the fact that scab existed in a certain country than they at once discounted the article produced in that country. South Africa contained too many sheep, and depended in too large a measure on the wool market to be able to afford a further drop in prices owing to the ravages of scab. If people were only active, honest, and prepared to co-operate, the eradication of scab was only a matter of time. He was not in favour of twisting people’s necks in order to get rid of the disease. They would have to see to it that the remedy was not worse than the disease. Yet, there was no part of South Africa where there was any excuse for the continued existence of scab. It had been said that eradication was too costly, but he knew from experience that that was not the case. If they made temporary kraaling provision by means of wire fencing, and cleaned their ordinary kraals properly, complete disinfection would result. Many people considered the anti-scab measures too drastic, but if they only consulted statistics they would have to admit that no step could possibly be too far-reaching if it led to the eradication of the disease. During the period July—September, 1910, 190,000 sheep were killed at the Johannesburg abattoir. Thirty-three thousand were scabby, and the disease was visible with the naked eye on 794 sheep, i.e., on a little over two per cent. of the total number infected. Clearly, it was their duty to prevent the remaining 98 per cent. from becoming infected. For the sake of such a comparatively email percentage they could not afford to let the majority run so great a risk. If they dealt with the small minority stringently, the object in view would be attained. Some hon. members appeared to favour a special Scab Act; others would like to see the administration of the scab clauses in the Stock Diseases Act in the hands of local bodies. He would never agree to that, however, because local administration meant local taxes to defray the cost, and under any such system the ultimate expense would be large than with central administration and Exchequer responsibility. The Cape Colony had in the past spent a million and a quarter on scab, and at present £100,000 per annum was being spent. The day would come when the taxpayer would refuse to contribute any further funds towards the extirpation of cattle disease; hence the necessity for a sharp and decisive fight. Local administration would mean delegating the authority to the Provincial Councils. These would make different ordinances, and he would never be a party to clogging the wheels of what was a matter of general South African interest in that way. The Agricultural Department would never be able to carry out he conflicting legislation that would result. If they got rid of the disease sheep would be able to stand the drought better. Absolutely uniform treatment was impracticable. In some parts of the country it was useless attempting to prohibit trekking with sheep; in others compulsory dipping was impossible. Matters of that kind could only be dealt with by regulation. The Free State Scab Act was a model law, but it contained a prohibition against trekking. Recently, however, the Free State had suffered from a severe drought, and unless permission had been given to trek thousands of sheep and lambs would have perished. It appeared that a special set of conditions existed in the North-western districts of Cape Colony. He did not know those districts personally, but it had been brought home to him that a little extra money would have to be spent there in fighting scab. Farmers there bred mainly Afrikander sheep, and most of the scab on the Johannesburg market was discovered in Afrikanders. Farmers who bred their sheep for the sake of the wool usually managed to keep them cleaner. People in the North-west alleged that, owing to the dryness of the climate, it often was exceedingly difficult to dip sheep. The Department intended enforcing the dipping of the sheep during the wet weather, so that scab should have less chance during the eight or nine months of drought. An old Cape Act stipulated that a farmer taking his sheep to market was only obliged to dip once. He regretted that very much, because a provision of this nature practically enabled a man to infect a whole market. At a recent meeting of persons interested, a resolution had been passed stating that farmers trekking with infected sheep should be allowed to pass across clean farms, and stay there for four days, for the purpose of cleaning their sheep. As a farmer, he would never allow such a thing to take place on a farm of his. (Hear, hear.) They should not make a political question of stock disease. At the time of the rinderpest scourge many farmers had fortunately realised the danger; they took steps ill order to Safeguard their cattle and the result was that a sufficient number had been saved to render a continuation of stock-farming possible. He trusted something similar would be discovered against East Coast fever in the near future. Dr. Theiler had recently told him that he had discovered a remedy against redwater and gall sickness. (Cheers.) As soon as the second reading had been agreed to, he proposed to have the Bill referred to a Select Committee, because he would never attempt to introduce a far-reaching measure without the cooperation of the House. To that committee would be submitted the Government’s policy, in detail, in connection with scab. He would never act harshly towards the farmers; his only object was to assist them. (Applause.)

said that he welcomed that Bill, as it consolidated the forty-two Acts dealing with cattle diseases which they had. He regretted that the Prime Minister had not devoted more of his speech to certain diseases, such as East Coast fever and others. The attempts made by the right hon. gentleman to convert hon. members were quite superfluous. He was glad that, attention was being devoted to the restriction of the importation of cattle which were diseased, for in the past they only shut the door after the horse had escaped—or rather, after disease had come into the country. He strongly denied the imputation that the North-western districts of the Cape had always opposed the Scab Act. He agreed with the Prime Minister that there was more scab amongst Afrikander sheep than amongst the merinos, for the simple reason that there were so many more Afrikander sheep amongst those sent to market. As to quarantining farmers on whose farms scab had broken out. He thought that was too strict, for did the Prime Minister know what that would mean in the North-west of the Cape Province? Did he know what a hardship it would be? If the disease were caused by a tick, which he believed was the case, then was not dipping sufficient, seeing that, it killed the tick? Was it right, that a farmer should have his farm quarantined, and all his financial and other affairs upset, merely because someone else’s sheep, which had wandered on that property, had ticks on them? As to the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, he welcomed it, but as to the regulations, he could not say that he would vote for the Bill before he knew what the regulations were. He thought that the second part of the Bill could not prove a success if the people were not consulted, and the regulations were administered from a place like Cape Town, instead of a local man, like a field-cornet, being consulted. Why, then, did the Prime Minister oppose local bodies for the administration of the Act, such as they had asked for? Regarding the fines, it was all very well for affluent persons not to grind £500 or £50; but £5 was a large sum to many a poor farmer, and some could not pay it, while £50 was ruination to them. They might as well put £500 in the Bill as £50. Great objection was being felt in the North-west against that Bill on that score. If “nieuwe ziekte” were to be included in the scope of the Bill the latter would become inoperative. As to the destruction of cattle, they must be very careful indeed; for if they killed all a man’s cattle without giving him a chance of trying to cure them of the disease they were suffering from, there would be great dissatisfaction amongst the farmers. He felt sure that many cattle had been killed which would still be alive if they had allowed them to be treated. As to the question of scab and the high cost of administering the Act, that was due to the large staff, which could be reduced. Too much money was wasted, and the disease was not combated in the proper or most efficient way. The administration was not sympathetic in many instances, and farmers were asked to do things which were impossible. He asked whether the Prime Minister intended reducing the staff which administered the Scab Act?

said that he thought the Crown Colony Act had worked well in the Free State, but there had been one defect, which was that not enough discretion had been exercised by those whose duty it had been to administer it, with the result that the sympathy of the people had been alienated In the new Act, more sympathy was shown to the people, and the officials were allowed more latitude; consequently, the Act was working more smoothly, and, he hoped successfully. He lived on the borders of the Transvaal, and his constituents were of opinion that their cattle were freer of scab than the cattle on the Transvaal side. He mentioned this because the Free State Act was being repealed, and the Prime Minister seemed to think that, the Transvaal regulations had worked best of all.

said that although they had veterinary surgeons who were very satisfactory, there were others who were not. There were certain new diseases amongst horses which were not at all infectious in the early stages, and he thought that farmers could be allowed to deal with these diseases themselves, while these diseases should not be included in that Bill. He disagreed with the provision which laid down that the farmer should have no option in case he were found guilty of certain offences under the Act; and he thought it was not right that a farmer should have to go to gaol. The option of paying a fine should be given.

said that he was glad that it was a practical farmer like the Prime Minister who had moved the second reading of that Bill. They all wished to see cattle diseases eradicated, but they had differed as regards methods. Methods which had been proposed had been too difficult for the farmers to carry out, and that was why he had opposed them. He proposed the adjournment of the debate.

The debate was adjourned until Monday.